CZ vs Sig

[Croyance]

The arguement to establish the clear superiority of the Sig that assumes I must sell both guns is weak. Now I have no guns on hand and it supposedly cost me the same? Non-existant guns all shoot the same and have equal utility.
This is more of a stretch of the gun's individual qualities than the looks of grip screws.

 

[dumbyhotshot]

I own a cz75b and have shot a sig. I like the ergonomics and trigger better. I also think it looks more unique than the sig. I have an overwhemling urge to get a sp01. Its toight and sexy. The sights on the sig are probably better. I had to paint my cz's sights to be happy with them.

Teh inside of my cz is full of machine marks, I dont care one bit. I works reliably and is accurate as s&^t. Im sure youll be happy with either, but just the same, save some money for more practice ammo and get a sp01 with 19+1 capacity and blast some stuff away.

 

[dumbyhotshot]

Uh disregard previous post please. Sigs are way better, buy one immediately!!!!!!





(Shush cz fans, we can have more cz's for ourselves)

 

[..]

I've owned two Sigs, they are overpriced and resale is terrible. Not to mention the heavy long trigger. I've yet to own a CZ, but I'd take one over a Sig.

 

[cslinger]

Like the snub.. Where oh where did you get that cheap POS knife....

What can I say I am a gun and flashlight kind of guy. The knives, well they are all working knives and none are anything to write home about. I have been eyeing a Sebenza though.

The knife is actually a Kershaw Storm. Cheap but very sharp and has served me well.

 

[chaim]

I like my CZ a lot. Very smooth trigger (DA is a bit long though and SA has a bit of take up), accurate, well made. Fit and finish on the exterior is quite nice, but the insides are a bit unfinished- just doesn't have the interior "polish" of a nicer gun like the SIG. It has been reliable, but certainly not 100%, and everyone I actually know who owns one has the same experience at best (the one exception- the CZ 40B I used to own was 100% when I owned it, I don't know if it has hiccuped for Spot77 yet or not) and one guy I knew had 2, read that 2, lemons.

I'll be able to better compare them later this week. I only got to dry fire my "new" 9mm CPO SIG 226 at the gunshop (MD has a waiting period). Dry firing at the shop, the trigger was probably the nicest DA/SA trigger I've ever tried. Very smooth and very light. The waiting period has been up since early/mid last week, but I haven't been able to pick it up yet. I'll finally be able to find some time to pick it up Mon or Tues.

BTW- around here new CZ 75s are in the mid-$400s, CZ P01s, 85 Combats, and similar are in the $500s. My CPO SIG 226 was in the upper $500s so not that much more than a CZ (you have to compare apples to apples so the better comparison is to the higher end CZs and not the base 75B). I also bought a .40S&W SIG 229 online this week for under $450 with shipping (with FFL fee it will be around $500, or a bit under what a P01 costs locally). Sure, I'll eventually buy a CZ PCR if I can find one or MAYBE a CZ P01, but I think I've been bitten by the SIG bug for now- especially when I can get a used SIG for close to CZ prices.

I would like a new CZ soon to see if the interior fit and finish has improved as my CZ 75B was made in 1999. I'd especially like to compare the interior of my soon to be in my hands SIGs with the PCR or the most sophisticated of CZs the P01.

 

[chaim]

What am I getting, functionally, for my extra couple a hundred bucks? Better function? More reliability? A better factory gunsmith who will take care of my problems more thoroughly and quickly?

Well, both are good guns. Both will most likely be reliable (though either can have its lemons). Both will probably be accurate. Both are well made, quality pistols. If you have a problem, both have good customer service reputations. Rugers are also reliable, accurate (at least in .45), and well made guns. It all comes to preference and if the little extras you get in a more expensive gun are worth it to you.

My best friend has a Kimber 1911, I have a Charles Daly 1911. Both are very reliable and accurate. Functionally there is little difference and they are even the same design. The Kimber has a quality feel to it that the Daly doesn't. Is that feel worth nearly double the price? That depends upon the purchaser and his/her preferences. If I had the money I would get the Kimber or SA over my Daly though.

His mid-to-high end version of the Kimber also has a better higher quality feel to it than his CZ 85 Combat or my CZ 75B.

The SIG will give you a slightly higher chance of a 100% reliable gun, and if neither are 100% it will probably be a little more reliable. The SIG will be better finished in the internals. Some of the smaller internal parts on the SIG are probably better quality though that extra cost may never actually pan out as anything that you'd ever notice. The SIG may have that subjective feel of being higher quality v. the CZ.

The CZ is a very good gun. The SIG is just a little more refined (and when you get to a certain level a little more refinement is expensive). Is that worth the extra money? That depends upon the person.

Buy what you like. Either gun will likely be a good gun. If you like the CZ better you have no reason to feel insecure about your choice. If you like the SIG better you don't have to feel like you are wasting money because it does have some actual advantages over the CZ (the question is whether those advantages are worth it to you). From the tone of your question I suspect you made up your mind before you posted. The CZ is a good gun, no reason to feel insecure. The SIG is a more sophisticated gun. There is no reason for either camp to put down the other one (why have I seen so many threads lately with CZ or Ruger owners needing to put down more expensive guns as a waste of money and their owners as snobs or idiots who spent too much).

 

[klover]

I make parts all day long....

A company that takes care with finish on the inside inspires confidance. My Sig will defend my life.

I WAS a big fan of the CZ Rami when it first came out. I totally loved the ergonomics of it when in the store, and ignored the machining swirl marks inside.
Took it shooting, and found that it failed to go into battery on the second round of a full magazine about 20% of the time. I polished the ramp (ugly to begin with, obviously the operator let a cutting tool get dull) to no avail. I went to the CZ forum, and found that this was a common occurance on the new Rami. Later, the forums mentioned that the latest Rami's had no polymer finish applied to the slide contact surfaces. Apparently this solved the problem. Remedy for the prior malfunctioning Rami's was lack luster from CZ. So I traded it with loss for a rifle, and resumed my search for a reliable bottom feeder.

Became a Sigophile after practice with 220 and 239.

 

[litework]

I don't really care about the price of a weapon...I only care about its performance in my hands. Sigs are nice weapons and they are certainly refined. CZs are actually kind of rough on the inside. I think people are justified in feeling that Sigs are the best weapons on the market. They are great guns. That being said, I much prefer CZ. In my hands it is the superior weapon in every aspect of perfomance. Performance is infinitely more important than the cosmetics of the internals, in my opinion. The CZ is better balanced (loaded and empty) and the controls are properly placed. With the CZ, I have much faster initial and follow up shots. I'm also more accurate with the CZ during slow fire and rapid fire. I don't have a lot of trigger time behind either model, but I've had enough to form an opinion. In my hands, there really isn't a comparison. That's why I recently purchased a CZ 75BD and not a Sig 229.

If the price of the CZ and Sig were exactly the same, I would still select the CZ. While CZ isn't my favorite handgun manufacturer, they're pretty darned good.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

Well said, chaim

A very articulate post that sums up the argument for me, as well. I understand the difference in upper eschelon and middle in terms of quality and will usually go for the better of anything I buy whether it's a chainsaw (Stihl/Husky), a piece for a motorcycle (factory BMW or Honda), or whiskey (18 year The Glenlivet). I know that quality is worth paying for and with a handgun, I'm hanging my life on it's function. So, I don't make my choice for CZ lightly. And, when I find something better, I'll buy it.

In fact, I opened my Blackwater newsletter and saw an ad for the Blackwater edition Sig. Now, I'm going to go shoot some more sigs just for the heck of it. If so many people feel there is an overwhelming margin of quality, then I gotta see it for myself.

 

[Mayo]

That's why I recently purchased a CZ 75BD and not a Sig 229.




Well, you should have compared with a P226 not a P229---totally different.

 

[Pilot]

Well, you should have compared with a P226 not a P229---totally different.

Its not "totally" different, the barrel is a tad shorter and the P229 has an alloy frame. My P228 sets in the safe, while my CZ-75D PCR goes with me all the time. You wanted a pure apples to apples comparison.

 

[litework]

Well, you should have compared with a P226 not a P229---totally different.

Because the 226's controls are placed in a better location than the 229's?

 

[Mayo]

1. Because of the size difference
2. Because IF you ever held the 2 guns they are completly different in balance. A P229 is top heavy for most. Heck Go to a P210 and compare to a CZ!

 

[litework]

The 226 is obviously different than the 229 in size and weight. I don't really consider either the 226 or the 229 to be top heavy when you hold the pistol high on its grip. Unfortunately, this puts the slide release in the way for me. I don't like the location of the decocker, either. I have taken long, hard looks at both makes (and the 220) when shopping for pistols. I really want to like Sigs, because I think they offer a high quality product. If I could get around their controls, I would consider their all steel 226 and 229 variants. The 229 being somewhat higher on my list due to its more compact size and its ability to serve as a concealed carry piece. In my hands, they are not as good as the CZ75. If they were, I'd own several. The next pistol on my list is the CZ 75 SP-O1.

Unfortunatley, I've never shot a 210, and doubt I'll ever get a chance; I don't know of anyone in my group who owns one.

 

[LanEvo`]

With all the CZ bashing by Sig fanboys, maybe it would be helpful if we actually tried to answer the original question

Lastly, I had to consider this: is the Sig worth $700+ to the CZ's sub-$400.00 price?

The bottom line is that the Sig P228 and CZ 75B are two guns that feel and function quite differently.

1) Right off the bat, the P228 was not designed to be carried cocked and locked, whereas the 75B was. So, if you prefer cocked and locked, the 75B is a natural choice. If you prefer DA, then the decocker-equipped P228 makes more sense. Personally, I don't like manually decocking an autopistol. If I insisted on carrying a DA auto (for whatever crazy reason) I'd take the Sig.

2) The two guns are shaped very differently and have very different ergonomics. The feel of the grip, etc. is totally different. The Sig feels a bit cramped for me. The 75B fits me perfectly. Someone else might feel the exact opposite. This is all down to personal preference.

3) The Sig has an unusually high bore axis. The CZ 75B has a much lower bore axis. For me, the Sig is unpleasant to shoot due to excessive muzzle flip that torques your wrist. Between the lower bore axis, larger grips, and greater weight, the 75B is a real pussycat to shoot.

4) Accuracy, reliability, trigger pull, ease of dissasembly: For me, this is a total draw. Both guns have great triggers. I would give the Sig a slight edge in DA pull. For me, the 75B has a significantly better SA pull, with a much crisper let-off (unlike the "sproing" you get with the P228). As far as accuracy, there is no difference in my hands. My CZ's have been 100% reliable in maybe 10 years of service. So there's no difference there, either.

The bottom line is I think the two guns are comparable. I believe CZ could EASILY sell the 75B for $800 and they'd have no shortage of buyers. There's a reason why the 75 is so dominant among high-level action shooters. I can't remember the last time I saw anything besides a 1911, Glock, or CZ 75 in the hands of a competitor. Personally, I have yet to see anyone running a Sig in competition (though I hear there are a few that use them).

 

[LanEvo`]

I WAS a big fan of the CZ Rami when it first came out. I totally loved the ergonomics of it when in the store, and ignored the machining swirl marks inside. Took it shooting, and found that it failed to go into battery on the second round of a full magazine about 20% of the time.

It's a shame that your first (only?) contact with CZ was the awful Rami. By all accounts, the Rami is a total dog. Any company can make a lemon from time to time. That doesn't mean the entire product line is crap.

Too bad you didn't start with a 75 or 97. Then you might have seen what all the fuss was about!

 

[schmeky]

LanEvo,

Well written. Something I have wondered recently is if the CZ were priced the same or even more than the Sig, then what?

I remember being told the story of Royal Crown Whiskey. It was a middle of the road product. When the price was raised " a lot", and put into a .25 cent purple bag and a fancy box, it became popular and viewed as one of the best.

Again, you are right about 1911's, Glock's, and CZ's (and CZ clones) dominating competition. I also felt a difference in felt recoil between the Sig and the CZ, with the CZ being a little "softer".

 

[amusthj]

blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada

I admit, I only skimmed these four pages, but it seems you guys missed one significant point;

1. Yes, there are a few exceptions, but in general Sigs have aluminum frames, and CZs have steel frames.

This is significant because the fact of the matter is; all non-ferrous alloys (aluminum) have a finite dynamic fatigue life. This means that any dynamically stressed component (handgun frame) made from aluminum will eventually fail. Guaranteed. This is a metallurical fact. Please ask for a second opinion. Two popular examples of this include aluminum mountain bike handlebars and aluminum baseball bats. It is known that both need regular replacement because of dynamic fatigue.

Ferrous alloys (steel) do not suffer from this problem. This is also a metallurical fact. The long and short of it is; a properly designed steel component can actually last forever, even under constant dynamic stress.

I argue that a steel framed handgun is superior to an aluminum framed handgun. This is my reason for owning CZs and not Sigs. I plan on handing down my pistols to my grandchildren.

 

[bluto]

Ferrous alloys (steel) do not suffer from this problem. This is also a metallurical fact. The long and short of it is; a properly designed steel component can actually last forever, even under constant dynamic stress.

Are you saying that steel framed pistols never experience cracked frames? Gimme a break. Steel parts fail. Aluminum parts fail. Some steel frames outlast aluminum frames. Some aluminum frames outlast steel frames. Depends on many variables.

Try visiting Bladeforums where ferrous alloys, tempering, and induced stresses are discussed ad infinitim. Visit 1911 forum and check out posts of cracked steel frames. Steel cracks, breaks, shatters, chips and fails all the time.

Steel parts even fail in aluminum framed pistols (like Sigs) when they're being torture tested by firing 10,000 rounds through them in one day:

http://www.galleryofguns.com/ShootingTimes/Articles/DisplayArticles.asp?ID=1230

A well designed and manufactured modern firearm - steel or aluminum framed - when properly taken care of should last many tens of thousands of rounds.

And if a steel frame is really a top criterion, you better stay away from CZ's new flagship compact, the P-01:

From CZ's website:

NEW compact handgun! The CZ P-01 is now available! After 3 years of some of the most aggressive small arms testing ever, the New CZ P-01 will be the successor to the CZ 75’s currently in use by the Czech National Police. The P-01 is based on the CZ 75, but with improvements in Metallurgy, quality control, and design. . . . The P-01 is named to convey that this is a new pistol and a new level of quality and Reliability, the P-01 is the first New CZ of the New Millennium.

The P-01 features:
- A forged aircraft grade aluminum alloy frame for light but reliable day-to-day carry.

 

[Croyance]

Steel parts can fatigue.
They have run Berettas well over 100K rounds. Change the recoil spring now and then (or actually keep track) and you too can have an alluminum alloy framed gun with a long life.
Sig makes steel framed guns. Level the field again.

schmecky, there is a lot to be said for repackaging and raising prices. This has worked for quite a few products. IIRC the low end Lexus is literally a prettied up Camry.

I think if CZ did a better polishing/finishing job, put in decent sights, and did something about that SA slack they could get away with charging a lot more than the added cost. Even to the point of $800 or so MSRP.

LanEvo`, I think the high bore axis and not the accuracy/quality of the Sigs keep the Sig out of most competitor's hands. That only slows people down.
OTOH it would truely be embracing the philosophy of using the games to become better real life defensive shooters to use the actual gun (and ammo) that you would use in real life. Each that you listed is noted for easy handling.

 

[paddykern]

I have a 239 and a P-01 and the wife can sell them when I die.

I bought them without concern for price.

The 239 has softer corners and works better for IWB carry.
The P-01 just melts in my hand.
If I could only have one, I would choose the CZ just slightly over the SIG because it feels better in my hand.
Both work every trigger pull.

Buy what feels the best.

 

[SteveS]

So, how much of a difference is there between the bore axis of the sig vs. the cz. Years ago, I thought I needed a gun with a low bore axis and bought a glock. I could never get used the the grip angle and sold it. I have never noticed excessive muzzle flip in any of my sigs, but maybe it is because I hold pretty high on the grip.

Back to the orginal post. If you like your CZ, you shouldn't run out and buy something just because people are telling you to do so. Several of the worst gun purchases I have made were ones in which I got something that everyone said was great, but I wasn't all that interested in it.

For me, the sig is worth it. They have always felt very comfortable, especially when compared to other brands. I am glad there are so many good choices.